Forging Paths: Understanding Outdoor Play for Children with Disabilities in Early Childhood.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Outdoor active play during early childhood supports healthy child development and is a fundamental right for all children. Childcare centres are one of the first opportunities for participation in active play among children with and without disabilities, presenting a potential space for inclusive outdoor active play to occur. Children with disabilities (CWD) face many barriers to participation resulting in exclusion within the childcare setting, especially when outdoors. To promote and sustain outdoor active play during early childhood for all children, this project aimed to understand parent and early childhood educator perspectives of barriers and facilitators to outdoor active play for CWD. Virtual semi-structured interviews were conducted with 13 parents of children aged 2-6 years with a diagnosed or suspected disability and 4 educators who had experience working with CWD in outdoor, natural spaces. Interview questions were guided by the social-ecological model. Three primary themes were identified through reflexive thematic analysis of the transcripts: ‘Disability in the outdoors- nature vs. ‘normal’’, ‘Adults can and should support outdoor active play for all’, and ‘Outdoor spaces allow for true child-led, free play and learning’. Collectively, these findings highlight parent and educator perspectives on access to outdoor spaces, the sometimes-conflicting beliefs of outdoor education between adults, and the importance of adapted outdoor play. Parent and educator experiences led to a deeper understanding of strategies to facilitate outdoor play by addressing how adults implicate participation in the outdoors. Outdoor, natural environments allow space for CWD to engage in play and learning, with supportive adults.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".